Monday, April 03, 2006

Fool me once

"O Fool! begetter of both I and Naught, resolve this Naughty Knot!"- Aleister Crowley, The Book of Lies

I hate April 1st. I always have, but more so in recent years, because it might as well be every day now. So much news, both reported and suppressed, seems tailored to make us look like fools for believing we live in a world where such things are possible. But this is our world, or at any rate mine now: a concretization of formerly ungrounded fears into an eff-you reality that parodies what used to pass for paranoia. And since it's a truism of comedy that there are diminishing returns for satirizing a self-parody, what's to become of April 1st?

ThisRegister story, for instance, which now carries the byline April Fool: "Bush Preps Historic Third Term - Memo." While I didn't fall for this one - a term limit serves some still necessary fictions, perhaps the most important being that real power resides in the presidency - it's not surprising that so many, apparently, did. A "draft proposal for a future Executive Order establishing a Continuity Presidency" is no more absurd than Bulldog Gannon's press credentials, or the Vice President shooting a man and joking about it afterwards.

The Register owned up to its prank, but Cannonfire's still playing this one straight: Was Barbara Bush's real father Aleister Crowley?

A sixth-level initiate within the OTO (the Ordo Templi Orientis, the mystical society that Crowely came to head in the 1920s) first set me down this research path by revealing that [Barbara Bush's mother] Pauline Robinson had befriended an woman named Nellie O'Hara, an American adventuress who, at some point during her European travels, met the famed writer Frank Harris. Despite his advancing years, Harris still maintained a reputation for sexual excess that rivaled Crowley's. During this period (1919-1927), Nellie and Frank Harris lived as man and wife, although they could not actually wed because Harris' second wife was still alive and would not grant a divorce.

...

Nellie's friend Pauline no doubt scandalized her social circle by traveling to France on her own and leaving two very young children in the care of nursemaids. However, her correspondence with her friend -- whose life in France with a famous literary figure must have seemed quite glamorous -- can only have inspired a sense of wanderlust. Her husband, increasingly bound to his duties with the McCall Corporation, did not share this spirit of adventure.

Thus it was that four individuals came together: Frank Harris, Nellie O'Hara, Pauline Pierce [formerly Robinson], and Aleister Crowley. Anyone who has studied Crowley's life will understand that what happened next was, in a sense, inevitable.

...

Pauline returned to America in early October of 1924. On June 8, 1925, she gave birth to a girl named Barbara. Barbara Pierce married George H.W. Bush, who eventually became the 41st President of the United States.

Many of the details check out, but I haven't found anything yet outside of Cannon's story supporting a link between Barbara's mother Pauline and Nellie O'Hara, let alone between Pauline and Crowley.

I'm not saying it's not true. I'm just saying it sounds too perfect, like a good hoax should. This piece stands out for Joseph Cannon since he doesn't usually pick at the occult aspects of power, and he's also a solid researcher not given to extraordinary claims. So I suppose what I'm really doing is adding the caution that before we repeat "Barbara Bush may be the daughter of Aleister Crowley" we should have more than the word of Cannon's annonymous OTO initiate as reported on April 1st.

Since we've already slipped into a time of attenuated reality in which anything - or at least anything bad - seems possible, we should take particular care about distinguishing fantastic fact from fantasy. For example, I still see The Onion gag from 2000 "Bush 'Refuses To Dignify' Mass-Murder Allegations" sited as a legitimate news story because "highly-regarded independent investigator Sherman H. Skolnick" cribbed from it in 2004. Whatever their previous merit, "investigators" like Skolnick and Tom Flocco seem little more than schlock artists now, serving product to the niche of paranoid entertainment by fabricating elaborate Black Iron Prisons in the air. It's poison to the legitimate inquiry of forbidden subjects, but consumers of conspiracy would rather have the thrill of being scared by a lie than be challenged by the terrible truth, because the truth demands more than our goosebumps.

69 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Why would it matter if "Barbara Bush" came from a night with Crowley? Seriously? 6 degrees of seperation and even less depending on the caste you inhabit. Be careful to interpret connections or events as collusion or conspiracy when the statistics suggest it is normal human interaction.

I'm out living in the world doing nothing of particular interest except living and find myself associating with people who are written into history.

Besides, Crowley is like every other religious person here in 4space, he looks like a practicer of cargo cult metaphysics.

Putting weight on random associations is a waste of time. Barbara Bush is a person. Crowley was a person. He didn't unleash hell on earth, he merely created a legend about himself.

If you want to change the world then become part of it. Who knows, perhaps you'll father the next wife to the son of Jeff Rense. (only joking).

Crowley's reputation aside, it was his relationship with Yeats and the Golden Dawn that cemented his persona and eventual path of discord. Yeats left the Golden Dawn and went on his own path to enlightenment in his discourse "A Vision". Crowley went his way following Yeats into the realms of channelling but not the same etherial voices heard by Yeat's wife Maude Gonne.

The first edition of "A Vision" is not the same as the second and subsequently republished editions we see today. Yeats was forced by his publishers to recapitulate some parts but chose to do so leaving as many hints as were possible.

The legacy we see today is that the suppression of A Vision first edition holds (The centre will not hold) and Crowley and all that he placed on the mantle of human activity reigns supreme.

I suppose someone made a mistake in the interlibrary loans services in Toronto, when in the 1960's my request for "A Vision" delivered up the first edition. I'm sure that mistake will not happen again.

"But this is our world, or at any rate mine now: a concretization of formerly ungrounded fears into an eff-you reality that parodies what used to pass for paranoia."

I write:

My feelings exactly, although April 1 has never really meant anything to me. But regarding this statement: Some of my friends tease me for my long interest in "conspiracy theories" dating back to the 1980s. The truth is that I never took them seriously , and viewed them as a source of amusement. They're not so amusing anymore.

And Bush Sr. wasn't actually Prescott's real son but the secretly adopted, German born, illigitimate son of George Schraff, Nicola Tesla's accountant. A favor rendered to get him to help set Tesla up...hmmm?

Bill Clinton, is of course, the illigitimate son of Lord Rothschild since his mother was working as a housekeeper for his lordship right around the time she became pregnant and was changing husbands.

Would it really matter or change things even if it were true? The characteristics we generally associate with a "bastard" work just as well for any "son (or daughter) of a bitch". If the shoe fits...

"It's poison to the legitimate inquiry of forbidden subjects, but consumers of conspiracy would rather have the thrill of being scared by a lie"

Jeff, this is slightly at a tangent to your post, but not entirely off-topic. I don't know if you can read German, but Andreas Hauss has just published an excellent, angry-but-reasoned article about how 9/11 activists have allowed themselves to be diverted into useless speculation about "controlled demolition". Such speculation, though it has already spawned thousands of web pages, could easily turn out to be disastrously counterproductive:

"Who wanted the WTC to explode? Nobody. I say nobody. Prove the opposite. OK - I can't prove my assertion either. But now you're ready for the following considerations. One by one..."

http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/falschspuren4.html

If I can find the time, I intend to translate the whole article and post it on the message board. (Hauss is co-author, with Mathias Bröckers, of an excellent, bestselling German book about the 9/11 scam. An English edition is forthcoming.)

For what it's worth, Republican Representatives have recently introduced a bill to repel the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution. This is the amendment that limits US Presidents to two terms in office.

This could happen. Another (nuclear?) 9/11, thousands of deaths, a not-so-bad 2006 election, some vote-cheating here and there (did you really believe 2004 was decided 49? to 51%?) and... presto! George W. Bush is re-elected for a third term.

Incidentally, I stepped in gum this weekend and commented to my six year old that people who spit out their gum on hot asphalt should be shot. To which she responded, "Yeah..they should be shot by Dick Cheney!"

I must disagree with Hauss' purported view that 'controlled demolition' of the WTC is a dangerous dead end for 9/11 skeptics. I think it's rather a very dangerous open-ended thread that by itself threatens the story of the entire proceedings of that day. I take it that this danger is why there is such considerable push-back on the matter.

Since I was working that day, I didn't see the live cable coverage at the time. Much of it is reproduced in the 'Spare Change' (v.2) video (available streaming on the web, which see, or on dvd). I was very surprised to see (on the official graphics under the video) and hear the tenor of the coverage, that 'secondary explosions' in the towers were widely reported by whomever was anchoring coverage of Fox and CNN, citing, and sometimes directly playing the quotes from, various first responders (firemen, police, federal agents). This included verbatim playing of what the emergency dispatch personnel were saying, based on official assessments directly on the scene.

Firefighters captured in the documentary film of that day describe a 'boom-boom-boom' SEQUENCE of blasts, as a cascade similar to the work of demolition teams. An independent filmmaker's tripoded camera showed noticeable shaking from the ground tremors about 10 seconds in advance of the collapse, at the same time people heard very loud blast sounds internally to the building.

The tremendous push back on the subject of the towers' alleged demolition, like the fearsome disputes (even in the skeptics' 'community') as to the plane or lack thereof at the Pentagon, show that both of these areas hold great vulnerabilities for the official cover story.

As to WHO is in the alleged empty set of those who wished the towers to collapse, it is far from a blank slate. The prior controllers of the master 99-year lease were the Rockefellers. They had already commissioned a study as to what would be involved in either removing the asbestos or demolishing the site, and the costs of doing this in a manner required by the environmental hazards of that asbestos were staggering and close to the value of the property.

Silverstein, the buyer of that master lease some 6 to 7 weeks before the events, stood to make billions, and double the face figure if there were found to be 'two attacks' or terrorism incidents, as was ruled finally in his favor on appeal.

All the major commercial real estate owners in Manhattan would benefit from reducing the overhang of a couple million of square feet of rentable space glutting the leasing market.

And there were ample criminal motivations as well. Taking down the 1, 2, and 7 buildings destroyed the evidence of some titanic financial crimes and gross market manipulations (the GATA matter, e.g.) that the FinCen, the Secret Service, the CIA, the IRS, and the SEC had in their offices there. Recovery of '$200 million' in gold bullion, when only one of several with stored gold, the Novia Scotia bank, had over $1 billion there, meant a 8-, 9-, or 10-figure score for somebody. Lastly, some parties evidently used knowledge of the imminent destruction of the towers, which contained the hard drives archiving certain financial transactions, to put through over $100 million in criminal transactions, on the theory that the destroyed evidence would prevent tracking back the authors of the crime.

So, on the theory of cui bono, who benefits, there is no shortage of candidates, and it is surely not an empty set, with NO ONE wanting it to happen. People able to make hundreds of millions or billions of dollars clearly had a motive. I suspect somebody claiming there was no motivation, nobody wanting the demolitions, is a gate-keeper mole, whose job it is to warn off parties getting a little too close to a vulnerable area.

How are these April Fool stories at odds with the accepted "truths" that are continually bandied about on this board?

You have bits of truth sprinkled with supposition & huge dollops of creative bullsh*t.

As an example, I'm reading book 2 of the Sinister Forces trilogy, a book you've recommended in the past, & i see nothing at odds with these fake stories. Christ, lavender can't even quote a Door's song correctly, but i'm supposed to take evrything else as well researched gospel truth. It's as silly as these fake stories.

As another example, i've been reading your archives, & I keep stumbling on these predictions of on-coming disaster that never come true. Is this board just a reincarnation of the Millerites or the Jehovah's witnesses?

You & Lavender like to use the Arnold sighting & tie it in nicely with Parson's Babalon Working, except y'all leave out the theory that what Arnold saw that day was nothing more than pelicans.

This from the British Columbian just 2 1/2 weeks after Arnold's sighting.

SAYS FLYING SAUCERS ARE PELICANSSpokane, Washington, July 12 (BUP) A veteran Northwest Airlines pilot who has flown over the Pacific northwest's 'flying saucer' country for 15 years today took all the glamor out of the mystery of the flying discs. All that people have been seeing, he said, are pelicans. Or maybe geese or swans. Capt. Gordon Moore disclosed that he & his co-pilot, Vern Kessler were saucer hunting last Wednesday on a regular flight between here & Portland, Ore. Kessler was sure he had seen some flying saucers on July 2, and the pilots were armed with movie cameras and binoculars for another encounter. "Suddenly we spotted nine big round discs weaving northward 2000 feet below us," Moore relate. "We investigated and found they were real alright-real pelicans."

There's a lot more in the Sept. 2000 issue of Fortean Times.

Also, I've seen you using the alien/government gobble-de-gook without once mentioning Greg Bishop's Project Beta which deals extensively with these stories & does a fine job debunking them as cover-up stories used to hide black budget projects during the cold war.

This reminds of a Peter Brookesmith article I read where he postulates that mystery hunters are more interested in keeping the mysteries alive than they are in actually solving them.

"I suspect somebody claiming there was no motivation, nobody wanting the demolitions, is a gate-keeper mole, whose job it is to warn off parties getting a little too close to a vulnerable area."

Sigh. Well, I could say you're probably a "gatekeeper mole" for pushing the shaky and unprovable controlled-demolition hypothesis, couldn't I? But that would be childish, so I won't.

Hauss doesn't say it's impossible that somebody wanted those buildings demolished; he just says it's unnecessary to presume that somebody needed it. And he rightly says that there's little point in dwelling on the HOW when we can easily demonstrate the WHO (at least half-a-dozen members of the ruling class demonstrably not doing what they were trained and expected to do, demonstrably blocking any constructive response, and demonstrably terrified of a genuine inquiry).

"I've seen you using the alien/government gobble-de-gook without once mentioning Greg Bishop's Project Beta"

Then you haven't seen everything yet. I've written about Project Beta and the disinfo campaign several times, notably here. Also, Bishop doesn't make a claim that the subject of UFOs is answered by disinfo or misidentification.

i've been reading your archives, & I keep stumbling on these predictions of on-coming disaster that never come true

I'm sure you could find a lot of that. You know the Dylan line? "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now." I try not to make predictions anymore.

bismillah, thanks for the tip. I've long felt diminished by not reading German. I'm unfamiliar with Hauss's work, but Bröckers is near the top of my list of 9/11 researchers.

..."investigators" like Skolnick and Tom Flocco seem little more than schlock artists now, serving product to the niche of paranoid entertainment by fabricating elaborate Black Iron Prisons in the air. It's poison to the legitimate inquiry of forbidden subjects...

That statement seems a little egotistical- sorry, but Jeff's posts sometimes appear to be co-written by his old lady or something.

Well, Richard, I know nothing about Project Beta, but what you say makes perfect sense to me. I think Sherlock Holmes said something about if you eliminate the impossible, then what remains is probably the truth.

Just about every report of "alien abduction" I've seen somewhere mentions, usually in a throwaway line, that an airforce base was near where the abduction occurred. I don't understand why this is not considered important or relevant. It sure rings MY alarm bells.

As for Bismillah's comment, it makes very little sense to focus exclusively on WHO, without at least a solid idea of WHAT occurred on 9/11 and HOW it was carried out.

WHAT and HOW, as they usually do in real life, will lead you to WHO. Focussing only on WHO, I'm sorry to say, is bass ackward. That's what "conspiracy tinfoilers" do.

BTW, I've read all the arguments back and forth about CD -- I don't find them "shaky and unprovable".

Vincent Bugliosi, the brilliant trial lawyer, once explained that proving a case was not like making a chain, in which the entire chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

He explained that proving a case beyond any reasonable doubt, was like putting one thread next to another thread until you have a thick cable or rope. From what I've seen and read, if you see it that way, the case for CD is absolutely compelling.

The fact that it has NEVER been credibly investigated in terms of means, motive, opportunity & the physical evidence that hasn't been destroyed, is simply one more thread added to the rope...

Somewhat related to this discussion is the reason for Bush's recent change in travel plans....

As Wayne Madsen reports:

"Last week, George W. Bush abruptly changed his travel schedule to attend the North American Summit in Cancun, Mexico. Originally, Bush was to depart for Cancun on Thursday, March 30 after appearing at the annual Washington egoist event, the Radio & Television Correspondents' Association dinner, held on the evening of Wednesday, March 29.

Instead, Vice President Dick Cheney was tapped to speak at the dinner after Bush decided to leave a day early for Cancun. There was an obvious problem with George W. Bush attending an affair at the Washington Hilton Hotel on the eve of March 30. This March 30th was the 25th anniversary of the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan by Bush family friend John Hinckley Jr. The juxtaposition of the 25th anniversary with Bush at the very same hotel where a family friend tried to kill the president, thus ensuring his father's ascendancy to the presidency, may have dredged up some long forgotten links between the Bushes and Hinckleys.

The death of Ronald Reagan would have propelled George H. W. Bush into the presidency in 1981, placing the nation into the hands of the Bush family eight years earlier. Scott Hinckley and Neil Bush were to have dinner on March 31, 1981, but the dinner was canceled."

Alice, we do know WHAT happened on 9/11: somebody crashed four planes (or something) into three buildings and a field, killing lots of innocent people. Then the US government, which had almost certainly organised or tolerated those attacks, covered everything up and declared Endless War, at home and abroad, on the strength of a all-purpose casus belli that consisted of an entirely uninvestigated crime.

Just as we don't need to know exactly how many peanuts were on the planes, we don't need to know (yet) exactly how the buildings collapsed. Nor do we have any hope of finding out, beause most of the evidence is now being driven around China, while most of the rest is under lock-and-key.

Not that it matters much. Because we already know that Rumsfeld was busy having a lengthy breakfast (and then applying band-aids to the wounded), Bush was sitting pretty with no fear for his life, Cheney was in charge of everything (and did nothing useful, except to him), General Richard Myers was trying very hard to look inconspicuous, General Winfield had disappeared without trace, and the nation's air traffic controllers were trying to work out what was a wargame and what wasn't. A few weeks later, anthrax was sent from a US military research base to the two Senators capable of causing trouble to the Bush regime. And months previously, David Frasca of the FBI had blocked any investigation into the alleged hijackers, despite multiple urgent pleas that he do so.

Condoleeza Rice and Ari Fleischer also demonstrably and outrageously lied when they said those attacks could not have been anticipated.

All of this information is verifiable, but very little of it is as well-known as it should be. Andreas Hauss is surely right when he says that people should be concentrating on publicising these demonstrable facts, rather than wasting their time in front of a computer screen trying to extract the Holy Grail from some blurred pixels.

Ruppert predicted years ago that all this "physical evidence" stuff would lead to nothing but frustration. I think he's right. And one thing strikes me very strongly: Defenders of the Coincidence Theory (Popular Mechganics et al) only ever address the sceptics' claims on the issues of a) Controlled Demolition at the WTC 1, 2 and 7; and b) Pentagon - Plane or Missile? In fact, they love that stuff, precisely because they know that the arguments are endless and undecidable by amateurs, especially when most of the evidence has been hidden or lost.

Suddenly, Charlie Sheen is on CNN for three nights running. What's with that? I tend to think that Sheen would never have gotten on TV for so long if he'd chosen to focus on the issues I list above. I can't help thinking that somebody finds it useful to have refutable claims made loudly - three nights running on CNN! - by a prominent movie star. And I can't help worrying that the Bush Gang will come out any day now with a high-quality video of a large jet airliner hitting the Pentagon. It could be genuine, or it could be a 60 million dollar fake. But whatever it is, it'll leave the 9/11 truth movement looking very silly for ever having doubted the government's word; and all the other unanswered questions - the better ones - will be buried for good.

P.S. No, I don't think the official explanation of how the buildings collapsed is any way convincing either. But that's not the point.

P.P.S. And no, I don't think Charlie Sheen is a government shill. But it was only a matter of time before somebody prominent started getting skeptical for the wrong reasons. And it doesn't take a paranoid imagination to think that the people who were capable of committing such a crime are also capable of setting up an opponent they can easily knock down when the time is ripe.

Star route..Yeats reference to Bethlehem and the rough beast are jaded comments referencing his Irish distaste for organized religion. I don't think he was looking forward to a second coming. The time frame is still in the future but then given the "gyres" he studied, perhaps the thesis, antithesis and synthesis turns out to be the illegitimate offspring of Barbara. It runs 7 generations does it not?

I would dearly like to find the link about the asbestos in WTC. I read it many years ago and have seen the impact of asbestos removal on the bottom line. If the anon poster above could drop a link it would be appreciated.

CNN 7PM..more 911 movies are making the powers that be nervous... Entertainment Tonight..

I have to agree that Sheen is no shill but he probably has an "easy" button we're not privy to.

My apologies for missing the Project Beta discussion.You're right that Bishop doesn't say that the whole subject of UFOs are explained by government disinfo , but that wasn't what I was alluding to.I meant gobble-de-gook like this:

"Hello Art? Art? Hi. I don't have a whole lot of time. I was a former employee of Area 51. I was let go on a medical discharge about a week ago...and...and...[begins to cry] ... I kinda been running across the country...um...um.... I don't know where to start. What we're thinking of as aliens - they're extra-dimensional beings that an earlier precursor of the space program made contact with. They are not what they claim to be. They have infiltrated a lot of aspects of the military establishment particularily Area 51. The disasters that are coming - the government knows about them - .and there's a lot of safe areas in this world that they could begin moving the population to now, but they are not doing anything about it. They want the major population centers wiped out so that the few that are left will be more easily controlable [breaking down] I started getting - [transmitter fails]"

The entire 'X-filesy US Government made a deal with the aliens & they have underground bases where they abduct cattle & humans' crapola that has driven ufology for a number of years now & can be traced right to Paul Bennewitz & the huge amount of bullshit that the US government was feeding the poor delusional boob.

I'd also recommend Nick Redfern's book Body Snatchers in the Desert for more mundane spookshow explanations for some of ufology's most sacred cows.

I do apologize also if I come off as overly antagonistic but I've been reading Lavenda's book & I'm a bit pissed at myself for actually paying money for this 'he might have, she may have, they could have' stew of made up conjecture, overworked allusions to his personal experiences, & tiny sprinklings of facts that I've read elsewhere. Shit like Manson's arrest or his conviction happened on the same day as Crowley died or was born or blah blah effing blah. Gee, I wonder how many people were arrested or convicted on the same day in the US alone & why the fuck don't they figure into the mystical conjunction of dates?

I think it's called picking & choosing or hunting & pecking or just plain bullshit.

Even if I take everything in there as gospel, about all I learn is that power not only mutates people into pricks, it also makes them weirdo pricks too.

And after I quoted the Art Bell clip, I wrote , in the aftermath of Katrina:

It can still give me goosebumps, especially because it accords with my own tentative conclusions, but it can't rise much above the caution "For entertainment purposes only." The hyperdimensional hypothesis can be explored by physicists like Michio Kaku and UFOlogists like Jacques Vallee, and the "infiltration of the military establishment" may be considered in a study of the Pentagon's occult pursuits (that "earlier precursor of the space program" sounds like Jack Parsons and friends), but the caller's claim of special knowledge is beyond verification.

I thought of this tonight because I sense we're approaching a time of flowering for great evil. This shouldn't shock us, but it is still going to surprise us by unfolding itself in unexpected ways. Things are accelerating, events are overtaking us, and the goosebumps are giving way to nervous tension. What's different? Then the theory, now the praxis.

There's a thrill of discovery, even of dark discoveries, and a certain joy at exercising critical thought in America's great Forbidden Zone. But now the game changes. "They want the major population centers wiped out." The entertainment value of an apocalyptic warning is compromised when it begins to fulfill itself.

Wrong. He's just another clueless idiot cherrypicking his facts to fit a preconceived "boundary of possibility" view so the rest goes down the memory hole. Hauss is not analyzing or ratiocinating, he's already picked out his conclusion and he is attempting to selectively justify it to fit his preconception of reality, always a useless method to use to parse reality or others motivations or actions as I am sure regulars here at RI know. Particularly in the bizarre closing of the article above, I see that even Jeff rubs his own boundaries the wrong way quite often as well, and when that happens he angrily lets his boundaries win with a lot of empty hot air, instead of allowing them to be penetrated.

From that memory hole:

...

POINT ONE: the secret research team

IN 1989, regarding the recent information coming out by Karl Schwartz about the plans to take down the WTCs legally (and expensively) which would cost around 5.6 billion dollars then: [Plans To Scrap WTCTowers For $5.6 Bn In 1989!, From Karl W. B. Schwarz, http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/305386.shtml .] Due to the exorbitant price, they decided against it. However, instead of simply thinking of something else, they make the information gained about the WTCs as completely unstable a total secret from the world. Why would they do this? This preserved ***artificially high insurance rating*** of the WTCs. This secrecy is important; plus, it's probably illegal to withhold such information about building safety danger due to WTCs "galvanic corrosion". I'm sure WTC insurers could sue for insurance fraud on this information alone.

Interestingly, all architects were fired and all information about "legally" dismantling the WTCs was confiscated. They were threatened into silence. However, there are two witnesses--one of the architects and a photographer--have come forward after 9-11 to talk about these secret research teams to remove the WTC being disbanded in 1989. Information on that is posted here: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/305386.shtml

POINT TWO: FBI sponsored terror op in '93 to take down WTCs "cheaply" (for free! who wants to spend that 5.6 billion to do it!) with patsies to blame.

Jan. 1993, a mere few weeks into Clinton's first plurality win term--where less than 50% of an already small voting public wanted him--sort of like Bush! This was because of a split-right effect of Perot's campaign. This may have intentionally have been a strategy to shoe Clinton in, as well as punish Bush I's reelection attempt--because Perot was told to "stand down" from Bush on information he learned about Vietnam still holding live POWs--he was sent by Reagan to see what he could find out. Made enemies with Bush that way who was covering up the POW-MIA team/groups being used to run drugs into the USA. ...[taking out editoral unrelated comments about 1993 'election']... Anyway, back to early Clinton: Jan. 1993, a handy dandy "terrorist" operation involved internal explosions in WTC1. This almost took down the exorbitantly expensive to remove building--for free! However, the people parked the van in the wrong place. I guess that's what the FBI gets when it relies on "hired help." What do I mean? Well, later it was revealed (NYT of all surreal places amongst others--revealed years later I think) that FBI was directly involved in providing some live explosives to the very people they were "investigating" (FBI alibi) in a so-called "sting."

Very interesting "sting."

Particularly when the agent on the scene was told to give these patsies both the ideas for particular sites to hit and the technical knowledge for making some bombs involved. In other words, the FBI was writing the list of priority "terrorist hits," suggesting "FBI-recommended locations," to hit--while for public consumption this was only a "sting."

What that sounds like to me is that they were creating a subsidiary operation they could have to do the work--or some part of it--and take the blame in the all important cover story--and then voila, they could appear and arrest them simultaneously after providing them with the live bombs they let get into the building to destroy the towers. Very clean operation.

However, since the towers failed to fall, those two quarter mile tall 5.6 billion dollar lemons still gave some people sour faces. So, they had to get more "professional" whether they liked it or not. They required more information to get it done right. After all it is assumed that with galvanic corrosion dangers that had already developed in the mere 20 years of the WTCs standing, time was of the essence. The WTCs were getting more and more unstable by the year. The Port Authority, a key suspect of course, wanted to avoid spending billions of its own money to take it down. By the way, one of the people the FBI blamed in 1993 was put in the odd position of returning rental cars/vans to the UHAUL places...after he presumably blew up the WTCs? That's what the FBI said. Hardly a criminal behavior of someone who was on the run. FBI targeted someone who was "mentally challenged" for this part to play it seems. So in summary, Mr. Hicks, the FBI was actually "training the terrorists" in 1993 to take down the buildings for free. There is a history then of certain FBI higher-ups (obviously conspiring with people who would benefit financially) as suspects to force the towers down for free.

This is just the exact set up used in several years in the Murrah Building in 1995--where a distraction/pasty outside is linked with an actual internal demolitions arrangement to destroy a building for "counterterror legitimation". In short, I have yet to see a 9-11 book to deal with 1993 in any fair manner.

POINT THREE: US Gov't Geologist Phil Schneider evidence claims, WTC in 1993 hit by micro-nuke explosion in addition to the van bomb

Well, just like Murrah's plan in 1995, there were other internal explosions besides the van in the WTC in 1993--just waiting for the cover operation to work. Even these powerful "real" demolition charges failed miserably however. I guess that's what you get, when you rely on people who were at best amateur demolitions people or patsy's who seemed to have "parked the van in the wrong place" according to the real expert demolitions people.

So next, you bring in the actual professionals. Real American demolition expert professionals.

Real American COVERT OPERATIONS demolitions professionals--people like Phil Schneider. [editoral comment: who blew the whistle on it, and was murdered in 1995 or 1996 I think...]

They picked Phil because they wanted to be sure in this highly sensitive ongoing operation to remove the WTCs without any cost that the people picked to even relay any information to, about actual 1993 WTC bombs being much more than van bombs, would be forced to maintain such information in strictest silence.

They wanted to get someone so high up in the top secret infrastructure of the U.S. that they would be unable to tell anyone--thus, presumable completely trustworthy with the information.

So, he is first hired as a mere "consultant" on "post terror investigations" in 1993 to guage his reactions first to learning about the real WTC terrorism of 1993 which had nothing to do with the van bomb though which ran parallel though independent to the van bomb. These investigations--at least the publicly acknowledged ones (there may be more secret ones--Phil didn't exactly say who hired him), though the public ones were done by TriData which is CONNECTED WITH FEMA.

Who is Phil Schneider? Phil was an ex-US government geologist, NATO geologist, Rhyolite security clearance. Phil only reported or was answerable to three people he said: "directly to the President, to the head of the CIA, or a base commander."

"Hey he seems secure enough: let's let him in on what actually happened in 1993."

Schneider, after his resignation [in disgust at what they were doing] from the US gov't in 1995, began to talk about these confidences he was taken into regarding the actual 1993 WTC hit.

He was hired "as an investigative consultant" at first to do an entirely secret report about the condition and the explosion damage of the WTC. He was given some photographs to work with. Now, Phil knew explosives. He claimed he was daily familiar in his job with the explosion signatures and particular characteristics of more than 90 different kinds of explosives. He even invented some himself for particular US gov't/NATO secret operations, tunnelling, and underground base creation.

Demolitions were only his later US gov't geologist speciality where he designed charges and explosions based on his geological expertise at rock analysis to pulverize huge underground caverns in different kinds of rock for secret military bases. Before these types of jobs, he used to work for Bechtel [George Schultz connected--they are in Iraq soaking in war profits presently; Bechtel does lots of top secret projects] and worked for at least a dozen other military industrial complex operations in top secret "black technologies" mostly at Nevada's Groom Lake/G4 bases.

Phil in 1995 revealed what he saw in 1993 to the public.

He was handed photographs that he claimed showed "only one possible type of explosion due to the damange shown--damage like steel extrusion or steel stretching up to six feet at the site of the blast" where steel was stripped and pulled out of the reinforced concrete and actually pulled like taffy. Phil, from his expertise, said "that could only be caused by one thing: a construction-type nuclear device. And those are only housed as Mathers Air Force Base." [These are radiologically clean except for short term--at most a week or so--intense alpha radiation. Most Geiger counters don't even bother looking for alpha. These 'micro-nukes' interestingly enough are a speciality of the Israelis at Diamona, their illegally unmonitored nuclear weapons program [Mordichai Vanunu blew the whistle on Diamona], helped along by the U.S.] Phil writes his WTC 'micronuke' report.

He is asked, afterwards at last when they bring him into a large boardroom meeting, whether he "would be willing to injure Americans for us to serve your country's(TM) intersts?" In so many words.

In other words they were priming Phil to do the WTC demolition right, since they had just hired him to learn all about the buildings construction and damages from 1993.

He would be the perfect candidate. However, Phil balked: he attemped to walk out on them right then and there. They blocked him from the door he said. He threated to assault them, and they got out of the way.

However, he was convinced later that he had to complete the existing deep underground military base project that he was working on at the time. He does so. However, when his father was dying, he asked to be "released" from the top secret base site to visit him. He was released. His father died soon after. However, Phil did not come back--to even claim his last paycheck.

He began to write a book about everything he knew--writing from his Portland, Oregon apartment. He mailed back his security passes, ripped up. To gain credibility, as well as likely to protect himself should something arise, he had photocopied them. He began to show these photocopies--and tons of more information--to public audiences. Slowly at first. Then larger venues. He spoke publicly for about 9 months from 1995 to 1996.

As the speeches went on he got more confident in his message, and a handful were videotaped and we still have them: his basic message was that the U.S. military is seriously out of control and it is out to destroy constitutional democracy.

Inbetween these talks, he was repeatedly asked to "rejoin", though he refused. He says he is turning down his 1 million dollar a year guaranteed "retirement" package by talking because he is so concerned about what he knows they are doing.

During his talks, the Murrah incident happened.

He reported that from data he had seen, that there was no way that it was a truck bomb only; plus, he identified with his expertise in such things, that from the odd demolition signature, some type of scalar weapon had been utilized as well. Next, people simply wanted to assassinate him outright for speaking. Phil actually killed an FBI officer in a gun firefight. However, nothing happened because they didn't want the publicity. They attempted to kidnap his daughter. His ex-wife, who had custody of the daughter at the time, pulled a gun on the FBI agent. Nothing happens to her either. A local Sherrif who knew Phil even arrested an FBI officer stalking Phil. This FBI was either ready to kill Phil after breaking into his home or ready to take him away somewhere first. Still nothing happened. Phil says in late 1995 that he had survived well over a dozen assassination attemmpts, and that retired FBI officers who volunteered their services to Phil were even killed in gunfights protecting him. Still nothing happens: better to keep this hushed up.

Phil was very likely killed in early Jan 1996. No one was allowed to see the body--not even his wife.

Phil attempted to warn everyone what was going down--with very sensitive inside information. Some of that you can see here: http://www.bielek.com Beware: your snowglobe world will be shattered on many levels,...]

POINT FOUR: take two, in 2001: internal demolitions once more, witnesses

You could bother to ask some real witnesses to internal demolitions that did take down the buildings. I'm hardly apologetic for ripping out the word 'theory' from the word conspiracy here because they don't belong together in the first place: that is just what happened. TWO EYEWITNESSES to prepatory subbasement demolitions of WTC1&2, coincide w/ WTC1&2 hits http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/304905.shtml

[Many more WITNESSES TO SECONDARY DEMOLITIONS as well as the DEMOLITION SQUIBS THEMSELVES can be seen in the film Loose Change: 911 Loose Change 2nd Edition with extra footagePhil Jayhan and Korey Rowe1 hr 21 min 50 sec - Feb 5, 2005 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change&pl=true

---http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/305829.shtml

And what could be added of course was that Marvin Bush (brother of George W. Bush) was on the Board of Directors of the security company (Securatech) at the WTCs site. And, in an appropriate continuity to Barbara Bush/Crowley potential genetic link, Barbara mentions in her autobiography that Marvin's contract at the WTCs for security just happened to end on September, 11, 2001. She said it in the book.

And speaking to all, if reality is "too big" for you, writing and reading fiction calls...though this pursuit of reality is of course far more intellectually rewarding.

The short of it is that ever since 1979 and Three Mile Island--which happened to go off just to test FEMA that had been first authorized several days earlier and even illegally just to sync up the event), the U.S. Goverment and FEMA have been testing out ever larger frameworks of state terrorism, gaining information on how to perfect a society run by state terorrism and its political repercussions;

Clueless Yanks attacked to the TV and those north of the border unfortunately and unaviodably soldered to the U.S. political economy and culture in Canada are really hardly any wiser despite the fact it's been going on their whole lives.

Who can say whether to laugh or to cry at it that it works so well to have been doing this for 25 years or more solidly and successfully each time.

A society run exactly like Patrick McGouhan's "The Prisoner" series has been invented, and many even reading this blog still dislike even thinking about it, I believe, and still view this blog as some form of fictional entertainment.

Have you ever witnessed anyone having a full blown hallucination in a completely mundane setting?

As an example for my last question, I happen to work with mentally retarded adults & children. A few months ago a 19 year old co-worker flew out of the client's bathroom shrieking hysterically about how one of the clients defecated & urinated all over the bathroom floor & then masturbated until he was covered with semen.Rather than listen to the broad whine I opted to quietly go into the bathroom, clean the poor bugger up & send him on his way. Much to my surprise, upon entering the rest room I discovered nothing of what she described.The kid was sitting on the toilet which was filled with urine & he had a small glob of drool on his chest. Nothing else.

She, on the other hand, refused to believe this, choosing instead to believe that I quickly cleaned him up just to make her look foolish.

This is a useful quote from Kitty Kelley's book The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.

It helps to adjudicate the claim above (rather positively?) that Barbara Bush may be an illegitimate daughter of Crowley, based upon the interpersonal dynamics of the Pierce family--where Barbara has always been treated as the only second-class citizen of the Pierce family, interestingly enough, without much public explanation why or how it started.

Page 68-69:

"Barbara was 16 and a slender by the time she met Poppy Bush. Neither had dated anyone else before, not even been romantically kissed; they came to their instantaneous attraction, fresh and full of hope. Relatives remember them as two young colts chasing each other around the ring. "They were two tomboys, locking each other in closets," said George's aunt Mary Carter Walker. "They were just real tomboys."

Barbara played soccer at Ashley Hall, the girls school she attended in Charleston, South Carolina; she also played tennis and said she could hold her breath and swim two laps under water, all of which validated her with the rampaging athletic Bushes. Her mother discouraged her interest in sports as "unladylike." Pauline Robinson Pierce would have preferred a more feminine daughter, less rambunctious than the clumsy overweight youngster who was forever knocking into antique tables and breaking precious pieces of Chinese porcelain. Barbara, the third of four children, had spent most of her life as the ugly-duckling daughter of an elegant beauty. Her older sister, Martha, slim and stunningly glamorous, had made the cover of Vogue in 1940. Barbara, unfortunately, was built like her large-boned father [that could've been actually Crowley?]. Her mother treated her like a discarded refrigerator. As a defense, she ate constantly and developed a caustic tongue.

"I thought she was really mean and sarcastic [when we were growing up]," said June Biedler, a childhood friend whom Barbara teased for having a painful stammer. This cruelty, Biedler suggested, may have been the result of having "a mother that was a little mean to her."

Unlike George, Barbara was not close to any of her siblings.

She couldn't compete with her [beautiful] older sister, five years her senior, and she was squeezed between two brothers. Jim, the older, had behavioral problems, and Scott, the younger, had physical problems (a cyst in the bone marrow of his shoulder), which preoccupied their parents.

Barbara felt deprived of their attention and affection. She compensated in scratchy ways, developing a prickly and feisty personality."

Jeff and many of posters here at RI keep issuing dire advisories regarding (just by coincidence?) any 'conservativish' conspiracy researchers, it seems.

Skolnick had a bad moment and mistakenly cited a false source and so now he is to be banished from credibility for life?? That, to me, is so liberal mainstreamish.

The typical M.O. for liberal (and now also 'neocon') media personnel or politicians is that if their opponent makes one tiny slip (a slightly inappropriate or 'politically incorrect'comment) they are instant outcasts-for-life. It seems to be a convenient way of getting rid of people who may have substantive arguments against one's position.

I'm still searching for the 'horrible hidden truths' regarding the evil Ted Gunderson. Originally I was somewhat alarmed at the sober warnings but at this point it's..."where's the beef?"

"His 1968 release "Five to One"seemed like an eldritch prediction of the Manson slaughters with its tag line "No one gets out of here alive," and his reference to "five to one and one to five": the address of the Tate residence on Cielo Drive was 10050."

From the album:Five to one babyOne in five No one here gets out alive

Oh yeah, my research skills consisted of popping the cd in & listening to it.

I won't even get into the utter absurdity of his last statement about five to one & it's "eldritch" powers of prediction.I guess one to zero to zero to five to zero wouldn't have been as catchy.

I have an agenda?

Christ, that's rich pal.

Shinola, while you've assigned me an agenda, could you make me a CIA agent too?I've got 4 kids and I could really use the pay raise.

Personally, the only boob I wish would have been "disparaged" from buying these books is me.

Oh, the CIA uses evil?Really?Well, considering I live in a country with a tiny part of the world's population & yet it uses most of the world's resources, I'd say every single one of us is neck deep in "evil."

Or are you of the opinion that old Yahweh himself handed us the country on a silver platter & now he personally keeps the larder stocked cause we're all such swell people.

I suggest you get Fortean Times to revue your book. My guess is they'd skewer it like the shish-ka-bob that it is.

The last time I looked pal, it was a free country.I shell out my green for the little bookie & , lo & behold, that's my entrance fee to form any goddamn opinion I want about said bookie.

&, while I'm at it, you're going to publish a book by Mr. Wells aren't you?

Primarily dealing with this blog, eh?

With posts like this:

"Afraid the time's too short today for writing, but time's getting shorter every day. I don't mean to get all John the Revelator about it, but as Juan Cole's written, "Tuesday was an apocalyptic day in Iraq."

The destruction of Samarra's Askariyah shrine marks a Biblical moment of provocation in Iraq's ersatz Civil War. And just in time, too, because there's a time-table to keep where "real men" want to go.

These must be hard times for soft-headed apologists of "benign" empire, who thought there could be something of worth even to the fiction of liberation and democracy; who believed that civil war would be the last thing sought by Western powers, which wanted peace and security rather than provocation and chaos.

The Samarra mosque contains the shrine of the Hidden Imam, the Mahdi, whom many Shiites believe is about to manifest himself. It's a belief shared and encouraged by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well as Iraq's Muqtada all-Sadr. (The United States, of course, couldn't comfortably confront Iran so long as its presidency was held by the frustratingly reasonable Mohammad Khatami. In Ahmadinejad - who, like Bush, most probably won his office as well by election fraud - the US has a fine millenial foil.)

As Washington's Republican Guard must know, one advantage of cultivating a base which believes in the imminent end of the world is that the more catastrophic a regime's governance, the more encouraged its supporters become that they picked the right horseman for an apocalypse. Is all hell breaking loose? Great - all hell should break loose.

How short is our time, and how hot the coming hellfire? One more month, maybe, of this New Normal, before we tumble into the next circle. "

what is the point?

Since the end is nigh, are we publishing for the archeologists of reconstituted 23rd mankind?

Or maybe those evolved cockroaches that are coming after us?

Is it destined to be a future "Dead Sea Scroll" object of veneration & much quizzical pondering?

Here, instead of accusing you of just trying to sell books, I'll just hypothetically set your mind at ease by guaranteeing that I'll probably buy the 3rd volume too.

I have this compulsion to see the hurtling vehicle actually plunge into the wall & that's only going to come at the end of the trilogy.

Sheesh!

I have an agenda.

I don't like the book so it "must be getting through."

Y'know Mr. Milligan, most successful drug dealers that I've met in my life were successful primarily because they didn't do the drugs they sold.So, if you're going to sell paranoia, you'd probably sleep a lot better if you didn't mainline the shit.

By the way, I wasn't mocking him by mis-spelling his name. I happen to type with semi retarded sausage fingers & I didn't check it before I posted it.

Sorry.

& finally, another quote from pg. 151 on the Templars:

"They may have heard the legends.....""They might have heard of the Gospel of St. Thomas....""They might have heard that the bloodline of Jesus may have survived...""...the House of David may have survived the last two thousand years...."

Yeah, & George W. Bush Might be the most brilliant strategist the world has ever seen.

The second Levenda book was very disappointing, poorly written, rambling and badly in need of a good editor. I'm still interested enough to read the third one when it comes out later this year, but I would definitely recommend the first one over the second.

Well, lots of words. Yes, tis a free country and we all have opinions.

My point is you disparged the book because you said Peter wasn't quoting the Doors correctly using the word "and" instead of "baby?"

Now, I do not consider that a misquote but an author's license to make clear. The quoted songline suggests and "and" and dropping "baby" is really quite insignificant when compared with the shear magnitude of the endeavor.

And you may not think that the Doors' song has a eeire foreboding to the Manson case, but it continues with lines of thinking of Jung and many others about synchronocity and such. Considering the song was released in 68 and Tate et al. killed in 69.

No big deal if you don't care to think so.

Levenda isn't presenting a gospel, he is presenting his 25 years of research into some arcane subjects.

Something to hopefully shine some light on dark subjects and engender thought.

It ain't paranoia buddy, maybe a publisher oversensitiveness.

Please if you can find something truly scholarly wrong with the work, please speak up.

But if you want to just attack flanks and not address the complete issue, you may hear my opinins.

Levanda RIGHT HERE on this board betrayed a slippery duplicitous logic. It reeks, he reeks of the stench of fascist intelligence. I doubt you'll agree. I really wish you would reconsider your promotion of him, although I suspect you're too vested and in deep effort-wise for that to have a chance(that would go for anyone in your situation, what you're facing). His contribution to, well - what he contributed to - goes beyond scholarly scene dabbling. It is a mindfuck tremendous proportions laid on the most vulnerable a generation on the cusp of change, seen? Trickster indeed. One thing I'm noticing these days that's different is that the limited hangout shit is much more hangout than limited.

On another somewhat unrelated note: correct me if my exact facts are off, but I recall you mentioning that on the CIA-Drugs forum you once hosted, on the morning of 9/11, BEFORE THE 1st PLANE HIT, you had a regular forum participant post "turn on your VCR's". I have always been intrigued by that. Care to give us any details? Did you determine anything about who they were? What came of that?

Anonymous One,as the war for our minds goes on,we can argue many things,but the one thing that is for sure, is the fact that we are going to get fucked by something real soon,mind fucked that is,later.

Loved Unholy Alliance and will get around to buying Sinister Forces at some point (I assume my local library probably won't be obtaining a copy). I dig Lavenda's work, despite the questions raised by Alan Cabal's New York Press essay of three years back (which was cited in the RI article the other guy above is talking about). But a more irritating factual error is on the preview pages available for Sinister Forces online and it would be nice if it gets corrected in subsequent printings. That is on page 44 of the first volume under the Manhattan Transfer section, it states that Marcus Garvey was assassinated in 1968--that's a glaring error. Garvey had been dead for quite some time and not by assassination by 1968. I think Lavenda meant Huey P. Newton or H. Rap Brown or one of the Panthers. And Malcolm X, I'm sure was assassinated in '65, not '68 or '67. If the section is supposed to just include a larger gamut of years under the Days of Rage poetically named, then it's not real clear. Anyway, errors happen--I've seen some inaccuracies on occasion in a Robert Anton Wilson book, but I don't by any means consider them malicious and they don't necessarily ruin his credibility for me, but it could for some and the Marcus Garvey thing just seems a really glaring error. That being said, I ain't hatin'. I look forward to reading the books in their entirety.

Is that why you're sooooooooooooooo goddamn worried about one guy's opinion?

Knock off 2 book sales & Trine Day goes belly up, eh?

So, did Mr. Wells call you up as soon as my post hit the ether?

Are you like the High School Book Fair Hall Monitor?

Geez, Mr. Milligan, if I'd have known you were the hall monitor I would have never ever ever spitballed little Peter's locker. Please don't give me detention, sir.

Thanks for pointing out the "and" for "baby" screw-up.I was referring to"No one gets out of here alive"versus"No one here gets out alive"

So that makes two misquotes in one teeny tiny song lyric.So, what's the point of using quotation marks if you're not going to get the quote right?Oh wait, that falls under "artistic licence" huh"The armor of sloppy writers everywhere.

Here's the thing pal, your author makes some wide reaching claims, at times backed up by little more than "from the author's personal experience," but he can't even be exact in his quoting. So why should I believe him? Why should I believe you?

Y'know, I really love this. I shelled out $60 for these 2 books, but you're the one miffed that I didn't like them. What a hoot.

On pg. 169, Peter the scholar says, "The problem with the Kenneth Arnold case is that he was a perfect witness. A successful businessman from Boise, Idaho, he was also a deputy federal marshall and an accomplished pilot who was a member of an Idaho Search and Rescue team. In other words, if Kenneth Arnold said that he saw ufos, then he saw ufos, not the planet Venus or swamp gas or weather balloons."

Oh really?From my post above:This from the British Columbian just 2 1/2 weeks after Arnold's sighting.

SAYS FLYING SAUCERS ARE PELICANSSpokane, Washington, July 12 (BUP)A veteran Northwest Airlines pilot who has flown over the Pacific northwest's 'flying saucer' country for 15 years today took all the glamor out of the mystery of the flying discs. All that people have been seeing, he said, are pelicans. Or maybe geese or swans.Capt. Gordon Moore disclosed that he & his co-pilot, Vern Kessler were saucer hunting last Wednesday on a regular flight between here & Portland, Ore. Kessler was sure he had seen some flying saucers on July 2, and the pilots were armed with movie cameras and binoculars for another encounter."Suddenly we spotted nine big round discs weaving northward 2000 feet below us," Moore relate."We investigated and found they were real alright-real pelicans."

There's a lot more in the Sept. 2000 issue of Fortean Times.

Of course, this would require research.

I'm sure I could find more but I really don't have the time to do your job for you.

One further question, does your obscure little photocopying outfit have real trouble getting actual writers to review your books?Is that why an opinion from a marginal nobody on an obscure internet conspiracy circle jerk forum upset thee so much?

By the way palsy, I've decided to reveal my "agenda" to you.

Hang on to your hat & cue the spooky music....

....for the last eight years my home agenda has been (drum roll please) dirty diapers.

For the last 13 years that I've worked with folk suffering with MR my work agenda has been, heaven's to betsy, dirty diapers.

I'm even hoping, in deference to my stellar service to mankind's unfortunates, to have a huge chunk of a local landfill named after me.

Having said that, let's just agree to disagree.You go back to publishing books I won't bother wasting my money on & I'll go back to origami-ing my collection of Sinister Forces toilet paper.

Yes, the Marcus Garvey reference does seem to be an error, I will speak with Peter about it. And I believe that yes he was setting the stage as to the "political" atmosphere of the times.

To other poster, I find accussation that Peter "reeks of the stench of fascist intelligence" to be quite the stretch that belies an idealogical agenda.

And considering, who knows if your facts or logic are correct. The CIA-Drugs lists are still in operation and online for perusal. If you had actually looked at the record instead of of just rattling through your prejudices, you would see that the call to turn on VCR's was after the plane hit.

And what was your point?

...

TrineDay is a reaction to the publishing houses in New York not doing their job.

We publish suppressed books on a shoestring. We never have claimed to be printing Bibles, just books.

Why do you leap at disparging so fast? Your nature? You accuse Jeff of contacting me? For the record, Jeff didn't contact me, I am a regular reader and contributor to this board and I found your comments nit-picking and not truly discussing the book.

The three volumes are one book, and the three volumes are similiar to the three acts in a play each presenting part of the story.

You may believe what you will, if you will notice the article that you posted isn't sure whether people are seeing pelicans, swans or geese.

What Arnold saw isn't the point. The point is more about the entrance into our lexicon and awareness of "flying saucers."

As a matter of fact, we are unable to get mainstream meida to even mention our books, let alone review them

Well, gee, I don't know, could it be the $60 EFFING DOLLARS I FLUSHED THE CRAPPER BY BUYING YOUR BOOKS.

Not to mention the precious lifetime I wasted reading them.

I'm happy that you found your calling flinging printed darts at the monolithic security state.

thrilled to my tippy-toes as a matter of fact.

My point, my overriding point to all this, is that folks like you who supposedly publish secret & suppressed information to enlighten the masses had best make damn sure that every single t is crossed & every little i is dotted or you'll find the "shear magnitude of the endeavor"all for naught as it's surgically dissected by folks who actually have an audience & influence.It's one small step from that to the huge remainder bin in published book hell.

If your author would have done any real research into Arnold's sighting he would have discovered that Mr. Arnold's story became, shall we say, embellished over time..

The 'Mr. Wells called you' question was a joke bub.

Granted, not a very good one, but it's early &, quite frankly, I'm more concerned about the squirrel I have trapped in my chimney than I am about your opinion of me.

Now, i will graciously give you the last word because I'm typed out on this subject.

One more thing, Mr. Milligan, if your author wants some video insight into the power that Mr. Manson's presence holds, I suggest that he dig up a copy of his appearance on the old Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder.It's quite the hoot watching Tom Snyder sweating bullets & chainsmoking as the diminutive little boogie man fucks with his head & scares the shit out of him by doing nothing more than continually moving his chair around.

All this talk of controlled demolition of the World Trade Centers gives me a perfect opportunity to announce a new podcast called "WakeUp!" which will seek to document the lies we've been told, and more importantly, discuss real solutions whenever possible.

The first episode, about an hour and a half long, is titled "All You Need To Know About 9/11", and tries to succinctly document the government complicity in the attacks.

Yes, we talk about more than just the controlled demolition. We didn't get into some of the motivations for destroying the trade center, or the huge profits Larry Silverstein seeks to make from the Swiss-Re claim.

It also doesn't yet go into the deeper truths of the octopus as evidenced here... the first episode is meant as an introduction to our collective understanding of things, and will hopefully lead to productive discussion or dissemination of information.

I hope fellow RI readers will enjoy listening to WakeUp!, or will at least find it to be a useful primer for the more receptive members of their slumbering friends and families.

I don't buy it. "A sixth-level initiate within the OTO (the Ordo Templi Orientis, the mystical society that Crowely came to head in the 1920s) first set me down this research path by revealing that Pauline Robinson had befriended an woman named Nellie O'Hara, an American adventuress who, at some point during her European travels, met the famed writer Frank Harris."

that one sentence is the entire basis for the "theory," and depends on whether we can trust this anonymous "sixth-level initiate" in the OTO. fwiw, the OTO doesn't have "levels," it has "degrees," and the sixth degree is like the first step in the highest ranks, so i seriously doubt this "initiate" would be sharing information like this with a non-initiate.

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib194.html

"15. The Sixth Degree is an executive or military body, and represents the temporal power of the Supreme and Holy King. Each member is amenable to military discipline. Singly or in concert with his comrades, each Knight is vowed to enforce the decisions of authority."

It's also worth pointing (again) to the trickster. It's certainly a titillating story, but spun from the thinnest of threads, allegedly from an organization that is hardly known for its transparency or truthfulness. And what if BB is Crowley's daughter? Her haughtiness and arrogance is just as easily explained by other circumstance.

newswire article commentary united states 04.Apr.2006 15:469.11 investigation | imperialism & war On 9/11: Was the Asbestos-Laced World Trade Center "Disposable"?author: anAmericanMillions in the U.S. and worldwide now know there is evidence that 9/11 was an "inside job"; "false-flag," state-sponsored terrorism to provide a pretext for a premeditated war. But in exposing this evidence, the 9/11 Truth effort is also shedding light on a significant story-within-the-story: that the World Trade Center (WTC) was obsolete and asbestos-laced, and that its destruction on 9/11 may, for certain interests in the U.S., have been both desirable and profitable--independent of any interest in war.(Note: This article is written with empathy for all who were injured or who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001 or in the wars that followed, and with deep respect for the memory of all who have died. It is also written out of the conviction that important facts about the 9/11 events have been "officially" covered up and that the truth must be brought to light. Though the subject matter is profoundly troubling, the writer hopes this article will offer some new perspectives, raise new questions, and assist others who are seeking truth in the interest of preventing future troubles.)

...

Here are the topics explored in the rest of this article:

> The World Trade Center: obsolete and plagued with problems> A lengthy, pre-9/11 legal battle over the WTC's asbestos problems> Cheney, Halliburton, the Bush family, and asbestos> The WTC's change to private ownership--just weeks before 9/11> Have private profits been realized in the wake of 9/11?> How "controlled demolition" might have been orchestrated> Was "9/11" actually orchestrated to MINIMIZE loss of life?> The American public's growing awareness of a 9/11 coverup> Final thoughts: on 9/11, the prospect of "another 9/11," FEMA, and Hurricane Katrina> References cited> Other resources: books, articles, video, and audio> The Miami Herald's February 1, 2006 column on 9/11 questions

"...To other poster, I find accussation that Peter "reeks of the stench of fascist intelligence" to be quite the stretch that belies an idealogical agenda...."

Yes Kris, the backstory behind the the "Necronomicon" as revealed, how it was promoted to the youth, reeks of fascist intelligence chicanery as I know it.

And I guess that was my main point.

Peter Levanda/"Simon" coincidence and sins of ommissions, I just don't think you want to see it, what others do when they look at the record. Even with Levanda's wee-too-careful logic-parsing on this board.

When you publish "counter-establishment" books you have to choose your works carefully, be oh so much more discerning than publishing cookbooks, because you have to stand behind your authors, understand the authors, defend against disinfo and negative campaigns, the like. And even then, you never know. This is serious stuff. Yes, of "biblical" proportions.

I consider the "ideological agenda" of fighting to build a successful publishing house based on suppressed truth to be a very worthy one. But your comment about "not publishing bibles" - that sounds shaky. I should fucking hope we would take it that seriously! A few inconsequential "minor" errors: nitpicking. Quite a number of "minor" errors: shoddy and potentially discrediting. Inconsequential personal details omitted: author's license. Failing to mention highly relevant personal involvement in subject matter being discussed: criminal.

On to the 9/11 thing, that was not a snide point or really meant to be related,I was just looking for your explanation. I thought I heard you say it once in explaining the relevance of the CIA/Drugs forum in relation to the Berlet/McBride stuff (any recent details on that episode? Anything you can share about that case any more than you have?). It's still interesting even if it was after the first plane, but certainly explainable as someone who was very very smart about the ways of the world making a prediction about further attacks, not necessarily someone w/ foreknowledge, as I had thought.

Jeff, I usually agree with you, but to be blunt, any suggestion that 9/11 investigators ought to exclude the building demolitions and narrow the field of investigation solely to “WHO” is absurd.

Try going to a homicide scene and suggesting to the detectives that they ignore the scene, the physical evidence and the BODY, and instead focus solely on making a circumstantial shot in the dark based on educated guesses about “who benefited.” First you’d get the cold eye, and then you’d probably get put under arrest.

When investigating a homicide, you consider ALL the evidence. You go to the scene and gather forensic evidence: first and foremost, the body (who is it? How were they killed?) and then the murder weapon. You look for witnesses. If the crime happens to have been videotaped (and this is abundantly true of the WTC demolitions), you study the video evidence carefully. If not obvious, you try to determine the motive(s) for the crime. You identify and investigate likely suspects, trying to connect them to the victim, the scene, the weapon. You don’t just point the finger at whoever you think is the likely perp, and then leave it at that. You investigate every tip, every lead and every evidentiary path, and fit them together to form a coherent picture. (Actual criminal investigators reading this could probably help me out by providing a more complete checklist.)

The demolition of 1, 2, and 7 are not "red herrings"; they are evidentiary centerpieces. The towers are the crime scene. They (with planes, and very likely with explosives) are the murder weapons. Advising 9/11 investigators to not thoroughly investigate the crime is not a “help” to the movement; it is gatekeeping and hindrance of a sort that the movement could do without.

Joe Cannon is "a solid researcher"?? Bwaaahahahahahahaha. If I thought he was genuine then he would be someone who isn't even able to use common sense. But of course he ISN'T genuine, but is instead nothing but a left gatekeeper, going out of his way to keep discussion about 9/11 confined within a little box, keeping it within parameters considered safe for the regime. He is sickening. Hey Joe Cannon you fucking C.I.A. stooge, see if you can answer this: People in the reality-based community should have no problem whatsoever in realizing that the uppermost portion of a skyscraper is not going to be able to "fall" into and THROUGH the remaining vast majority of solid building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly as falling through air without something else (i.e. explosives) reducing said majority of building to such a state of offering no more resistance than air. Can we all agree on that? Sounds pretty straightforward; solid things offer vastly more resistance than air. Anyone who graduated elementary school SHOULD be able to grasp this, and SHOULD be able to therefore grasp that the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 building had to have been controlled demolitions. It is literally COMMON SENSE.

Think that's why he moderates his comments now? To avoid getting embarrassed by people who have common sense and the balls to USE their common sense? To avoid people showing him up for the gatekeeper stooge that he is? Eat shit Joe Cannon.

Whenever a feeling of aversion comes into the heart of a good soul,
it's not without significance.
Consider that intuitive wisdom to be a Divine attribute,
not a vain suspicion:
the light of the heart has apprehendedintuitively from the Universal Tablet. - Rumi